atheism leads to moral relativism

You consider Christian morals superior to those derived from an atheistic perspective. You cite the consistency of Christian ethics, as well as its focus on human dignity and stewardship, as evidence for your position. You further demonstrate the inadequacy of atheistic ethics through its equal treatment of "all substances"-- so, whether rock, insect, or human, atheists (at least after careful logical consideration) must value each equally. To be precise, this latter claim is not accurate: numerous spiritual traditions throughout history have emphasized the equality of "all substances." Consider, for example, some Native American societies. It is interesting to note that these societies, perhaps more effectively than most Christians or even atheists, rationalized apparent inconsistencies in their behavior (e.g. how they might justify killing a buffalo for food) rather cleverly.

Moving back on topic, simple right/wrong Christian ethics prove fabulously incomplete. It works well only for elementary, one-dimensional scenario-- to lie or not lie, to kill or not kill. Increasingly complex situations require a pragmatic (or morally relativistic) approach. Again consider lying and killing. Each is abominable, but a pragmatic approach allows one to, for example, lie to a murderer to save the life of another. Obviously, the appropriateness of lying is conditional.

Consider a more demanding example: would you allow one person to die in order to save two? Most people might answer "No!" But would you allow one person to die in order to save 1 million? Most people might answer "Yes!" Notice that a curious condition arises. Two persons and 1 million persons represent extremes-- a very small number of people and a very large number of people. But what if the numbers weren't so extreme? Logically, there must exist a number between 2 and 1 million where a person becomes ethically torn. Herein lies moral ambiguity. I argue that practically all dilemma we humans encounter on a daily basis are of this form-- falling within the gray areas where simple right/wrong ethics do not suffice. Moral ambiguity arises not from evil or corruptness, but, rather, from the complexity and diversity of our societal interactions. I further argue that regardless of your preferred moral identity, all humans operate pragmatically; it is necessary for survival.